The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-06-05
STORY OF THE REPEAL OF TIE
MISSOURI COHPReMISR.
What the Late Governor Archibald
Dixon Of Kentucky Did to
Effect II.
HE BELIEVED IN THE POLICY
OF NON.INTERYEsTION,
And That the People ShOuld be Left
TO Make Their states In Their
Own Way.

and convincing, and is valuable
contribution to history. The last
paragraph is forcible statement of
the question, and makes the case of
Judge Dixon as strong as he intend
ed it should be, especially with the
people of the South:
The Repeal OF the Missouri Conn
promise.
Justice to the truth of history, no
less than to the memory of the dead
requires at the hands of one who
knew better than any one else the
author OF the repeal of the Missouri
compromise a true and faithful re-
lation of the circumstances and mo-
tives of that repeal, as known to the
writer. The circumstances that led
to it and the motives that prompted
it can, however, only be fairly appre-
ciated and correctly understood
through due knowledge of the true
nature of the Missouri compromise
itself.
The history of the act of 1920,
commonly known as the Missouri
Compromise Act"-by which Mis-
souri, was given permission to enter
the Union without any restriction
upon her as to slavery, and slavery
was at the same time prohibited in
all the territory of the United States
west of the Mississippi, lying north
of $50 30-when given in full in book
form Gas is proposed by the writer,
will show that several grave errors
concerning it have crept into the
popular belief. One, that it was
Southern measure; another, that
Henry Clay was its author; and yet
a third, that it was sacred COM
pact" between North and South, and
Its repeal gross violation of plight
ed faith" 1t will be shown that, on
the contrary, the entire legislation
for the three sessions of 1888,
1920 and 1820-21 was but a con-
tinued and prolonged contest
for power and territory between
North and South, in which
the North was the strongest
and won. That the South yielded
to what she could not successfully
resist without fight; preferring to
yield her rights in the Territories
rather than destroy the Union, to
which she was most devotedly at
tached-whilst the North looked
upon the restriction of slavery as an
advantage gained which, of course,
she would never willingly resign, but
did not regard the act of 1920 as
sacred compact" whose. repeal
would be a gross vindication of
plighted faith"
II will DO shown that Mr.. Clay op-
posed any restriction as to slavery,
either in Missouri or the Territories,
as demonstrations in itself, and un-
lust to the South-that he did not
propose restriction, but left the
Speakers chair repeatedly to speak
against it, and the only vote he gave
on the subject (when there was
tie) decided the question against re-
striction in Arkansas.
1t will be shown clearly that the
whole idea of restriction of slavery
grew out of the opposition OF the
North to its extension into the ter
ritory beyond the Mississippi; that
every proposition for restriction was
made by Northern members, that it
was opposed by the entire South and
was forced upon them by Northern
majority; that it was only when the
Union seemed on the verge of disso-
luton, that the point was yielded by
the South as to the territories, on
condition that Missouri should be
admitted, free and untrammeled, in
full possession of State sovereignty.
1t will be shown that this condition
was never fulfilled, and that Missou-
ri was not admitted under this agree
ment at all-which was the act of
1820-but was denied admission by
the same Northern majority which
had forced restriction upon an un-
willing South, who accepted it as the
only alternative to the dissolution of
the Union. This denial sufficiently
evidences that the act of 1920 was
not regarded by the North as sa-
cred compact-as, of course, if it bad
been, they would not them
selves have violated it by such
denial, within less than one year
after its enactment. 1t will be shown
that they did not then even claim it
as such, but expressly repudiated the
idea, claiming that if there were any
compact at all, it was not between
North and South, but between the
United States and Missouri, and that
Missouri had broken her compact,
and therefore she was denied admis.
sion into the Union. 1t will be shown
that Missouri was afterward admit
ted under an entirely separate act
from that of 1920, and under an en-
tirely new condition. condition
which was an attempt to limit her
State sovereignty as to the exclusion
of obnoxious persons from her Dor
ders "a right which had been freely
exercised by the older States) and an
act which was utterly homogeneous
and absurd-at which Mr.. Clay was
said to have laughed in his sleeve, "*
although offered by himself-and
which Judge Douglas termed the
richest specimen OF irony and sar-
casm that has ever been incorporated
into solemn public act. 1t will
be shown that Missouri's exclusion,
for a time, from the Union, as we'll
as the prohibition of slavery north of
36' 3V, were both simply acts of
power on the part of the majority in
Congress, which another majority had
the perfect right to undo whenever it
could; and this, without any viola
ton Of "plighted faith" whatever.
As regards the repeal of the Mis-
souri, compromise, its true history
will show that even graver errors OF
belief have arisen concerning it. 1t
has been called "a plot, IAN in
trigue," surrounded with mystery"
and it was even stated, as coming
from the Hon. William H. Seward,
of New York, to have been the result
of collision bntween himself and the
Hon. Archibald Dixon. of Kentucky.